IsaVulpes wrote on 05/21/20 at 00:18:10:

I agree broadly with everything you say in your post upthread, but as far as I can make out, his 2000 Elo claim was for a tournament rating as opposed to a published one based on a year's worth of games. I think the post in which he says this has now been deleted, but I quoted a part of that post earlier in this thread in which he says 'I got a 2006 elo rating in my first Fide event'. For him to manage that over the course of five or six games I can believe. Of course, he might well have said something different elsewhere.

Whether 2000 or 2400, Heuristic obviously is not familiar with IM Siliman's theory of imbalancies. That or he misunderstands. Even for me it's easy to point out several imbalancies in that Fischer-Spassky game as early as move 8 .... What he means with "but it was not unbalanced" is beyond me, I'm afraid.

Seeley wrote on 05/19/20 at 20:21:07:

Personally, I doubt the veracity of any and all of his claims. Just reads like a horde of nonsense.

2000 FIDE you already don't attain without some amount of effort, but he got to it in 1 year(?), and doesn't even pat himself on the back for it, but pulls out some random story of his grandpa drawing Karpov in a simul, which clearly gave him chess genes(??).
His first rating was 2000, but when he was a 1600 he already beat 1800s, and he outplayed this random dude and whatever else, always at the same time sounding really proud of his achievements, and making them out to be easypeasy.
Then he quit OTB chess to focus on his university studies, but instead of moving towards online chess, he decided that "mere humans" would not be interesting enough to play against anymore, and instead went on to spend his freetime.. playing long time control games vs 25 year old engines. Bonus points for finding "no satisfaction" in beating humans, but fighting a stone aged engine, which he crushes in every game, instead. That's gotta be satisfying alright..
Somewhere in this process he turned completely delusional, and not just calls himself 2400 (on the back of literally nothing), but doubles down by saying "my rating is higher than yours" (lmao), and triples down with claims like "Mamedyarov is positionally a 2400". Thus coming full circle; the random 2000 with like 10 rated games, who played 50 games with Fritz 2 to train chess, is positionally on a level with Mamedyarov. Because.
And now, after all of that, he suddenly finds this forum, and writes 100 messages a day in every thread, half of them complete nonsense, the other half at best misguided, desperately seeking validation for his great wins against the engine, while talking down on any actual chess players, and making one ludicrous claim after another.

Normally I would assume this is an overload of Dunning-Kruger, but 2000 FIDE is a bit too respectable of a level to be that moronic. Generally at that level you have faced the odd 2200-2300-2400, and noticed there's a gap. You've also noticed that there is absolutely no way for you to measure the "positional skill" of a Top10 player, let alone in rating points..
Either he is a savant, truly talented at chess, and barely functional at anything else; or 80% of this is made up.

Wouldn't at all be surprised if the vs. Engine games he keeps plastering in here were all played with engine assistance (or with takebacks); something which he can't do online, so that'd be a straightforward explanation as to why one would continuously play a shitty machine, rather than actual people. Haven't checked any of them out though, and given he is playing vs a 25 year old Fritz version, who knows what he might be using for assistance anyway (would likely not lead to a huge Stockfish matchup % if he used Fritz 4 to beat Fritz 2)

mn wrote on 05/19/20 at 19:51:28:

Oh yes, I absolutely agree with you, I don't think he's making up his 2000 rating. Apologies for not making that clear. His grossly inflated sense of his current ability, though, perhaps explains how he can be so dismissive about other people's ideas here and also about the abilities of very strong professional players.

TopNotch wrote on 05/19/20 at 18:19:58:

He claims to be 2400, though that's his own assessment rather than an actual FIDE rating, and it seems extremely unlikely. I'm not very good at putting in links, but if you click on 'Heuristic wrote' (below), it'll take you to the relevant bit of that thread so you can see it in context if you can be bothered to do so.

Heuristic wrote on 05/19/20 at 14:56:15:

I challenged this and he's so far failed to reply, which is unlike him.

(edit: to be clear, I challenged the bit about him being 'at least 2400' now, not the claim regarding the 2006 rating in an event at some point in the past)

Heuristic wrote on 05/19/20 at 11:27:57:

When speaking of the KIA it would be good to cite games which are actually KIAs.  That's a Closed Sicilian. 

Stigma wrote on 05/19/20 at 11:33:57:


Do you really think the main line (c6, bg4) offers sharp play? If the main line is slow, strategical, play than the opening should be characterised as such. The equivalent line with colours reversed would be a London system with bg5... not exactly unbalanced and interesting...

Stigma wrote on 05/19/20 at 11:16:00:


I most certainly disagree. Take the game below for an example. It turned sharp but it was not unbalanced. If you meant sharp then fine, but unbalanced no.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044751

"Unbalanced" isn't an either/or thing. It comes in degrees.

The KIA against the Sicilian is more unbalanced than the symmetrical KIA vs KID, for instance. I don't see how you can disagree with that.

None of that contradicts the fact that it's unbalanced - unless you try to play it against the Pirc or 1..e5.

"Unbalanced" and "closed and strategic" are not mutually exclusive terms, at least not to me.

Here's what wiki says

The KIA is a mirror image of the setup adopted by Black in the King's Indian Defence. Yet, because of White's extra tempo, the nature of the subsequent play is often different from that of a typical King's Indian Defence.

By its nature, the KIA is a closed, strategic opening that presents its practitioner with common themes and tactics and a comfortable middlegame against various defences

Stigma wrote on 05/19/20 at 10:20:23:

Stigma wrote on 05/19/20 at 10:20:23:


That is the same as asking if there is a difference, since e4 will be played anyway. I would not characterize  KIA structures as unbalanced play.

mn wrote on 05/19/20 at 09:21:29:


Against e5 you can try d3, and on d5 you can go Nc3. It's quirky but if you go d3 to the scandinavian and black trades... You see where I am going with this

Well, to be fair, is there any particular reason why you can't play the KIA against the Pirc/Modern? I mean it may feel a bit strange to play something like 1 e4 g6 2 Nf3 Bg7 3 d3 d6 4 g3 Nf6 5 Bg2 0-0 6 0-0, but if you're a diehard KIA player, is there any particular reason why you can't do it? I definitely think 1 e4 e5 is the biggest deterrent to playing the KIA via 1 e4, but as John Emms (I think?) wrote, it could be useful to learn the Open Games while also getting to avoid the main theory of most of the other openings. Btw, the Alekhine is also something you can't especially play the KIA against.

Stigma wrote on 05/19/20 at 03:14:20:


That's not comparable since white can always play some version of the kings indian attack if he starts 1.Nf3 but not 1 e4.

Mtal wrote on 04/13/20 at 05:50:22:


1.e4 makes no sense. Black can play the scandinavian.

KIA has a very solid reputation. But you really need to be a patient and strong player, if you want to beat strong players.

Quote:

Yes, that would fit!

Quote:

A great idea from MNb, promoter indeed of numerous incisive ideas! I play the Reti and occasionally the (Botvinnik) English, but I don't always feel wild about the options after 1 Nf3 c5 (only a matter of taste of course), so starting with 1 g3 and hoping for a Clamp after 1 …c5 certainly appeals.

Of course, White has to be prepared for various alternatives, including 1 g3 c5 2 Bg2 Nc6 3 d3 d5, when I guess the choice is between a KIA and a Reversed Leningrad (which I imagine is neither better nor worse for White than many/most other ‘Polar’ lines). Mr Movsziszian plays the flexible 4 Nd2 here, and I noticed that in the position reached after 4 …Nf6 (not the only move of course) 5 e4 e6, he’s tried 6 Nh3, which I’m not sure I’ve seen before! This seems uncommon, but looks to score well even if the sample is a small one … But then, is it any good? And meanwhile, if White does try a KIA (via any move order) can he avoid the lines that don’t appeal to MNb (or others)? Maybe White’s chances are better in the Rev. Leningrad? – I’ve never played it so have no view.  Anyway, thanks for this suggestion, MNb, scourge (in another Forum thread), I notice, of the Closed Sicilian!

Neil McDonald's book is great, I think half the games/chapters start with 1.Nf3. The KIA makes sense against the French and the Sicilian but it is toothless against e4-e5, I think McDonald doesn't even cover 1.e4 ....e5 in his book.

So if you are an e4 player you need to pair it with an e4-e5 opening or start your games with 1.Nf3 and allow all kinds of transpositions and ... novel opening lines

Personally, I ran away from the KIA since I realised how easy it is for French players to play e5 in response to g3. If I'm going to invest time to learn an opening, it must be worth it and this just isn't.

Mtal wrote on 04/13/20 at 05:50:22:

I liked Starting Out: King's Indian Attack by John Emms very much. He mentions both 1.Nf3 and 1.e4 to reach the KIA.

@Mtal - If you are going to concentrate on the KIA, then 1.Nf3 is by far the simplest way to start. Just be aware that you might need to play d2-d4 sometimes. For example in the line MNb gave, 1.Nf3 d6 2.g3 f5 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.O-O e5, white really should be playing d2-d4 at some point, most likely at move two. One of the strengths of 1.Nf3 is flexibility: white retains all the options with c, d, and e-pawns. But if white inflexibly plays only for d2-d3 and e2-e4, black can easily choose a setup where that's not great.

If on the other hand you have hopes of being a main-line 1.e4 player someday, then starting with 1.e4 to reach the KIA is a great move order. There are a few sharp responses you would have to learn right away, e.g. 1.e4 d5, and 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5. But you shouldn't mind that, because your plan is to be a main-line 1.e4 player, and you would need something against those anyway. Against most everything else, you can close your eyes and play the KIA. Later you can pick and choose which main lines to study first, and slowly replace your KIA one opening at a time.

MNb wrote on 04/14/20 at 21:34:14:

Incidentally that game was annotated by Piket in Chess Informant (and cited in ECO).  Basically he thought it should have been unclear or equal until 8...Qc7 9.a4 Be6 10.Ne1 Nd7 11.f4 f6"?" 12.Bh3"!".

MW wrote on 04/13/20 at 20:00:59:

I was a bit struck by a game Kramnik-Jorden van Foreest.  It was a kind of reversed classical KID in which Kramnik's attack involved Nh4 and Ng6, then he missed a chance to get in a decisive Nh8.

Mtal wrote on 04/13/20 at 05:50:22:


It depends rather on what you are prepared to play next. KIA can work after 1. e4 c5 or 1. e4 e6, but less well or not at all against the alternatives. If you play 1. Nf3, you have to know where you are going after 1. .. Nf6 with Black just copying White for a while. Also you have you know how to play against 1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 Bf5/g4.

There's also the reversed Pirc to be wary of. 1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nc6 3. Bg2 e5.

You won't go wrong with King's Indian Attack: Move by Move by Neil McDonald (Everyman, 2014). Neil is very good at explaining why one thing works and another doesn't, and he doesn't pretend that White is better everywhere when this is plainly not the case. You play the KIA to get a decent, strategically complicated position with most or all of the pieces still on the board, from which you can hope to outplay your opponent; Black is objectively fine in many different lines, but must still play the arising positions well.

1.e4 or 1.Nf3 is just a choice you have to make. You can still set up a KIA formation after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 (or indeed 2...Nf6), and GMs have done so, but it's not going to be one of the better versions. There is no such option after 1.e4 d5, but if finding a good response to the Scandinavian is the biggest problem in your repertoire, you're better placed than most of us. 1.Nf3 allows 1...d5 2.g3 c6 or 1...f5 (although again, if 1...f5 is your biggest problem...). Overall I think 1.e4 is a bit more work, because if Black sets up with c6+d5 or e6+d5 you have to be aware of options with an early dxe4; 1.Nf3 lets you play e4 when it suits you.

It's definitely worth while to identify the strongest regular practitioners and look at their games. Amin Bassem comes to mind for starters.